


The Duty of Care: Morality in Buffyverse

by avrelia



Series: Buffy the Vampire Slayer meta posts [3]
Category: Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV)
Genre: Character Study, Episode Analysis, Gen, I've got a theory - it could be bunnies!, Meta, Series Analysis, reposted from my Live Journal times
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2020-03-24
Updated: 2020-03-24
Packaged: 2021-02-22 23:55:56
Rating: General Audiences
Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply
Chapters: 1
Words: 1,610
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/23302447
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/avrelia/pseuds/avrelia
Summary: Why Buffy kills some demons but not others? In what sense she is the law? What can we do to help her?
Series: Buffy the Vampire Slayer meta posts [3]
Series URL: https://archiveofourown.org/series/1613863
Comments: 4
Kudos: 5
Collections: March Meta Matters Challenge





	The Duty of Care: Morality in Buffyverse

**Author's Note:**

> The original publication date: March 2005
> 
> https://avrelia.dreamwidth.org/72258.html
> 
> I would write it differently now, but the main ideas would still be the same

The question I started with was: How much do we care? How much should we? 

Then I went back and decided to see what Buffy does, what are her duties, and how she performs them.

The initial premise of the series is that there is our human world that is always on a brink of destruction from the demons that would love to claim this world back, if not for a girl. One girl in the whole world that stands in the way of the forces of darkness.

Thinking about the world where metaphors are changing into real things, and things into metaphors I keep stumbling into realization that it just doesn’t work on all possible levels, and you know what? It is fine by me. I have enough levels to play with.

Still, one girl in the whole world? We are damn lucky that everyone who wants to end the world come to do so in California, and not in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso; Vologda, Russia; Trondheim, Norway; or even New York.

But this is whole another can of worms, and I am not going to touch it any more as not to destroy the fragile logic of the Buffyverse.

If we accept the initial premise of this universe: the slayer’s duty is to protect the human world from the demons, and we can see that the job description never tells to kill all demons – it is plainly impossible, especially given the concept of multiple dimensions many demons can travel at will, then the question arises: whom the vampire slayer must kill?

My answer is: those who threaten human world at whole or are actively killing humans.

She is there to stop immediate threats. Buffy kills to prevent the badness, not to punish for it.

Having to kill things on a regular basis, Buffy always has to make this choice – must she slay this particular demon now or let them go?

People blame Buffy for not accepting gray, and operating in the black and white world. I can't agree with it. Buffy doesn't live in the black and white world, and she doesn't believe it's possible. Yes, sometimes she may yearn for it, to simplicity in her life, but don't we all dream of impossible things?

Yet there is a division in her mind – a certain border that gives an opportunity for such perception. (as we are looking from her POV, it may influence the perception of the Universe)

Is it a division between good and bad? I don't think so. I believe the real division is to kill or not to kill.

Buffy is the law – not because she is making it, but because she has to draw the line beyond which the staking starts.

I am looking for a pattern here - whom Buffy didn't kill - humans, no matter what humans do (she is there to protect the human world, and there are human authorities whose duty it is to deal with human criminals), Clem and other random demons in demon bars, Spike, Harmony, Anya (after Hell's Bells to Selfless.) 

Harmony is so ineffective as a vampire that her potential danger is minimal. Once again I am operating on the premise that Buffy’s goal not to eliminate all vampires, but to eliminate the most dangerous threats from the demon world for the human society, as well as to stop any impending apocalypse. 

So, Harmony gets a pass. Most fledglings are not, however, as I believe that their potential danger is unknown, but to catch and stake them at the moment of the raising is much easier than to wait and appraise the risk. 

Now, if vampires have a good sense to stay away from Sunnydale, they can last. 

Spike doesn’t have this kind of good sense, but he keeps surviving his meetings with Slayer, and not because he has superior fighting skills – after all, this Slayer also survives their fights. 

In the seasons 2-4, when they are actively trying to kill each other, most of the battles end with Spike running away, and Buffy not chasing him. 

Then, Spike gets a chip that effectively prevents him from hurting humans physically – which eliminates Spike’s threat to human society. No, he is still evil, and he hates or despises humans, but he is not hurting them. True, he could have done something without resorting to violence – and Angelus or Dru would have done it, but Spike is here not for causing pain, but for blood and mayhem, and the thrill of hunt. Not killing humans = no fun, he would better kill something else, even when it means helping Buffy kill demons. 

I believe Buffy was justified in her decision not kill Spike. Only in Sleeper, when she saw that neither chip nor soul hadn’t prevented Spike from killing, she seriously considered staking him for good. Until she realized that there was no Spike’s will in those killings. 

As a threat he is neutralized. He could make significant mischief and troubles, but how much did he actually do for all those years he was hanging around in Sunnydale? I am not saying that he is fluffy and nice law–abiding vampire: he is not; I am not saying he didn’t do anything wrong: he did, but I believe that in letting Spike be Buffy judges his threat to human society to be infinitesimal. 

Anya, as a vengeance demon. Buffy wouldn’t kill her as a human – she doesn’t kill humans, and she doesn’t kill as a punishment. Buffy doesn’t kill her when Anya becomes a demon again – and yes, there probably is some goodwill extended to her, because she is a friend, but the thing is, Anya didn’t kill anyone – until the dorm massacre. We know it from Halfrek admonishing Anya, but we can guess that Buffy doesn’t kill her exactly because she doesn’t hear anything about her – and they all know that her work tends to be spectacular.

Buffy has some hope that Anya doesn’t do anything terrible, but she is suspicious – the goodwill notwithstanding, and when Buffy learns about deaths in the dorm, she has proof that Anya has stepped over the line of the potential danger Buffy has in mind. Anya has never been too shy about her vengeance-wish practices, so Buffy could be sure when Anya worked in her full strength, there were going to be lots of gruesome deaths, which she couldn’t allow. 

As to the random demons in Sunnydale, including Clem, how many times Buffy uses the demon bar as the source of information to the threat ahead, without killing all the patron there? All the time. She does save occasional kittens from being eaten, but she doesn’t care about kittens too much to kill the demons who eat them. 

It is my opinion that many demons in Sunnydale appreciate having a low profile and a good standing in the eyes of the resident Slayer. 

In Help she reminds us her modus operandi:

"Vampire by vampire. That's the only way I know how."

And it strikes me how right she is – she has to make that choice every single time and it is only possible when operating on one by one basis. It is also a root for her well-known aversion to using firearms. Firearms, namely modern firearms (as opposed to muskets, for example) are weapons of mass destruction. They would allow to kill demons and vampires in mass, and eliminate the possibility to decide every single time – to kill or not. 

Am I on to something here? 

Killing things is the means to achieve the goal. The goal is saving people. Let’s see how Buffy is going about it. 

As much as she would want to, she cannot save everyone – it is as impossible as to kill all demons and create the world peace. She does try – every single time up to the end of seasons 7 – sometimes she manages to save the random person and always the world, but is she doing enough? 

Does she care enough?

Buffy doesn’t let the vengeful ghosts in Lessons to beat her into the guilt over not saving them, she cries four episodes later for not being able to save Cassie, but ultimately her closest family and friends are always her first priority. Is it so bad?

I consider the BtVS and its character to be a mirror of some sorts. I look into them, and I see myself. Sometimes I cheer, sometimes I am horrified and promise to behave better – but I recognize myself there. Buffy is not a shiny example I should look up to, Buffy is a mirror where I recognize my best and worst. 

I care about my family and friends slightly more that about the random people in Thailand. I should care equally, I know, but I haven’t reached that level yet. Am I completely worthless person because of it?

Buffy saves the world every day. She tries to help every single time. What duty of care she own to you, every single person in Sunnydale?

She will save the world from falling apart and turning into a hell, she will give her own life to do it; she will save you when she see you falling prey to a vampire or some mean demons…

But when she doesn’t see you? Stop waiting, don’t expect her to be your personal bodyguard, don’t close your eyes: open up your eyes, stand up and self yourself and those you love.

You have a duty of care, too. So do I. So we all. 

And this is one of the lessons I took from the season 7 of BtVS.

If everyone cares, the world is covered, right?


End file.
